The lawsuit challenged the E-Bike Policy under five legal theories. First, Plaintiffs alleged that the E-Bike Policy violated NPS regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, Plaintiffs contended that the Policy was issued in violation of NEPA because no NEPA document was prepared. Third, they asserted that the Policy was issued by an official that was unlawfully acting as the NPS Director in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Fourth, they contended that the Policy was issued by an official without authority because the NPS unlawfully created a third deputy director position in violation of its Organic Act. And, fifth, they alleged that the Policy was the result of a de facto advisory committee in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). These claims were later amended to challenge a subsequent regulation.
There was no evidence of NEPA compliance for the Policy in the record. Had later actions not mooted or otherwise cured issues relating to the Policy, the Court made clear that Defendants would have lost those claims as well.